Buger

I know everybody wished the RX-8 was released a couple of years earlier but now might be a good time after all. Those of us that keep up with the news in the US might have heard about a new commercial that the major networks have decided not to run. It basically tries to get across the idea that buying an SUV is "unpatriotic" because it supports countries that have ties to terrorism.

I don't want to even touch on whether the commercial has merits or not but there does seem to be a little bit of a backlash against SUVs nowadays. SUVs are have become so popular in the US that we hear more and more complaints about them. Complaints of how many we can't see around them, complaints about how dangerous 6000 lb vehicles are, complaints about their 12 mpg fuel economy, complaints about how the government has different standards for them etc, etc. Could this be the start of a trend back to something else?

Of course we all don't *need* SUVs or sports cars. The most practical thing for most of us to do would be to buy a small econocar with weak performance but that wouldn't be any fun... I believe there will be a trend to go back to smaller "sportier" cars. I don't think these "sports" cars will be anywhere near as popular as their predecessors in the decades past because this is a different time. One where we have 240 hp "family cars".

In the last week, we've taken in a lot of new information. Some of what we've heard were good surprises like price and fuel economy. Others meant a little slower performance like a possible 3011 lb weight and taller gearing ratios than we expected. I do think the RX-8 is poised well to take advantage of the times though. With the RX-8 they aimed at a wider market than the traditional sports car (by adding more practicality) while retaining true sports car handling and braking. While the RX-8 will lose some buyers because it will not have the acceleration of the last RX-7 or the new 350z, it will gain many many more buyers because it has seating for 4 adults, more practical trunk space, better fuel economy, a lower MSRP and much better reliability. Since the RX8forum is more of a performance enthusiasts site, we may not care as much about stuff like practicality and a possible 24 mpg (20/28?) combined fuel economy . The good news is that many many more buyers may...

I still feel that the perfect car for the rotary will be built from the ground up to take advantage of all of it's strengths. The rotary lets Mazda build a car with high power and a low center fo gravity that no other carmaker can match. A small, light (2500 lbs), low cost, 2 seater sports car with a 1.3 or 1.5 L renesis must be produced if Mazda is serious about setting themself apart and getting their individuality across to the world.

Brian

sheylen

A possible 3011 lb weight? Where do you have that information from Brian?

Anyway, the RX-8 with 240hp and 4 seats is perfect for me.

nk_Rx8

Look at the thread titled 'Specification Deck' with the number listed in the spec sheet - although it does say 'unconfirmed' still.

ZoomZoomH

iTrader: (1)

so there's still hope that it'll be lighter in the final spec

Zio

what about all these soccer mom's and their minivans?? I loathe minivans.. or any kind of van for that matter even the mazda concept washu.

On another note, if the RX-8 weights 3011 that will seriously slow it down... buger can u do a 0-60 estimate with this weight? or possibly 3141 with a 130 lbs driver.

ZoomZoomH

iTrader: (1)

minivans are ok in my book, because they don't try to be something that they will never be (e.g. extended off-pavement driving, which majority of SUVs sold will never see). And they are MUCH better at hauling people than any SUV will ever be (3rd row seat in a minivan is actually comfortable for a full-grown adult)

I may just get a Washu (or whatever production car it becomes) for family hauling purposes when I start a family, whenever that may be

cueball

I agree. Some people actually need a minivan. People who have a large family and want to be able to go somewhere without taking 2 cars. They also provide a much greater interior volume than SUVs. It seems like nowadays every other car that comes out tries to have some SUV aspect to it. 9 out of 10 of these "SUVs" could barely traverse a gravel road. SUVs try to do too many things and do none of them well (with the exception of a few). I think it is time for a SUV backlash.

IGOZMZM

Curious...... I would rather take two RX-8s to take the family (if I had one) out than to get a minivan or SUV. But that's just me

Zio

true i think SUV's designed for off-roading are totally useless, like hummers or jeeps. I have a tribute since I need the extra cargo space and the 4 wheel drive during the winter. I suppose minivans are a good idea for hauling people around but I just dont like the look that much, meh just my opinion.

FamilyGuy

The thing that always got me about SUVs was the price. They really are a luxury vehicle, when you consider the expenses. Not only does a minivan offer better gas mileage, more comfort and space, they tend to be much cheaper and safer too.

Compare Honda's Odyssey with the Pilot, Ford's Windstar with the Explorer, Nissan's Quest with the Pathfinder, and Toyota's Sienna with the 4Runner. In all cases the minivan gets better gas mileage with more space for less cost, and in most cases it's safer too.

I think the best example is the Ford Excursion. 7000+ pounds, 130 feet of cargo space, 12mpg (if you're lucky), $35,000+ . Ford E-150 passenger van, 5000 pounds, 240 feet of cargo space, 15 mpg, $27,000+. I'm the oldest of six, so I've travelled - comfortably - with seven other people inside a nice roomy full sized van lots of times.

Sports cars are all about the looks, and if you reject an otherwise good car because you dislike the styling, I can respect that. For big vehicles to carry cargo, haul stuff, and hold six or more people in comfort, I think practicality has to trump appearance in your considerations. I'd much rather buy the van and put the money I save in up front cost, insurance, and gas mileage towards a rotary engine sports car :D

Toadman

Like when Explorers throw their tread or blow out their Firestones at 80mph. Hello? Those are noisey mud/snow/ all terrain tires, not Z-rated low-profile Michelins! High speed and thick tread develops a lot of tire heat. SUV's should be governed to 70mph max.

MaRX8

"Since the RX8forum is more of a performance enthusiasts site, we may not care as much about stuff like practicality and a possible 24 mpg (20/28?) combined fuel economy . The good news is that many many more buyers may... "


I for one am one of those people. I am an enthusiasts, but the RX-8 appeals to me because it can carry 4 adults in it. It's a sports car, but it has enough practicality that it's not unreasonible to buy it. I have a small family, and this will allow me to still pick up the kids from school. A miata, Nissian Z, or RX-7 would not allow me to do that. This was a big decision factor for me. In a way, the RX-8 let's me keep my cake, and eat it too.

B18C5

SUVs have their place. Some people with SUVs are really into off-roading. Some people with sports cars are into track racing. Most people with SUVs want the off-road look with the practicality of an SUV. Most people with sports cars want the track racer look with a car that's fun to drive day to day.

What's the big difference? Both are usually bought for image, but there are a lot of people who actually buy them for thier intended purpose.

I agree that there are more practical choices than an SUV in most cases. I decided on a 4Runner over something like a Sienna because of it's 5000lb towing capacity, 4WD and off-road capability. Plus I don't need the space of a mini van. And I have to admit that being a single guy I'd much rather be seen driving an SUV than a mini van.

FamilyGuy

B18C5, we're in agreement.

I'm not one of those people who runs around screaming about those evil yuppies that buy SUVs. I was just saying that an SUV purchase is often as impractical as a sports car purchase... if you want the most value for your dollar, you're better off with a van or sedan, respectively.

Don't get me wrong. If I had the money to burn, I'd be parking a Ferrari right next to a Cadillac Escalade in my mansion's garage. As it stands now, I'm saving up to repair the roof in my one car garage. So even though I'm following the Rx-8 with interest, I'll probably never own one.

DrKillJoY

http://slate.msn.com/id/2076587/

(Keep an eye out for the bold comment in the 5th paragraph, and think about that)

What Would Arianna Drive?
Her preachy new crusade against SUVs.
By Rob Walker
Posted Monday, January 13, 2003, at 9:13 AM PT

It's one thing for a mass-market product to be attacked by a religious group. Or to be mocked by Hollywood crusaders. But to get it from both sides? That's not easy, so congratulations sport utility vehicle owners and manufacturers: You are the target of the most comprehensive anti-marketing effort in recent memory. Last year a Christian group called the Evangelical Environmental Network came out with an anti-gas-guzzling spot that asked, "What would Jesus drive?" And now comes a salvo that has gotten even more attention: Marginal pundit Arianna Huffington and friends, calling themselves the Detroit Project, have put together an ad that parodies an earlier government campaign linking drugs and terror; their spot says it's SUVs that fund al-Qaida. This is certainly a provocative gambit, but how successful is it? The two ads were slated to run Sunday, Jan. 12, in several major markets, and you can see them here, on the Detroit Project site.

In the spot titled "Talking Heads," various people in the role of SUV owners say things like "I helped hijack an airplane," and "I helped blow up a night club," and "I helped teach kids around the world to hate America," and even, "I sent our soldiers off to war." These comments are interspersed with defensive ones like, "It makes me feel safe," "Everybody has one," and, finally, "My life, my SUV." The spot closes with titles informing Detroit automakers that "America needs hybrid cars now." The ad called "George" focuses on a character of that name who buys gas to fill his SUV. A child narrates and innocent music plays as we meet the oil executive responsible for filling George's tank, and then see a map of the countries (Iraq, Saudi Arabia) where the executive's company acquired the necessary oil. "And these are the terrorists," the little girl says, as we see an image of machine-gun-wielding guys in the desert, "who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV." The closing titles: "Oil money supports some terrible things. What kind of mileage does your SUV get?"


These ads borrow their structure from the controversial anti-drug spots that debuted during last year's Super Bowl and drew a direct line from American drug use to murderous terrorism. (You can see those ads here.) Oddly, no one seems to have pointed out that Huffington and Co. are late to the party in borrowing from those ads in a style that makes a point about oil consumption. Last August, a "pedestrian rights and advocacy group" called Citystreets produced a campaign—a much better one, in fact—that included a 30-second spot called "Where Do Terrorists Get Their Money?" (See it here on the Citystreets site.)

Instead of focusing on SUVs, that ad interspersed quick-cut scenes of an apparent terrorist operation in progress with titles such as, "Fake I.D.: 1,500 gallons," "Box cutters: 1 gallon," and "Explosives: 600 gallons," before asking, "Where do terrorists get their money?" The question is answered by images of cars. "Every time you fill your tank," a title says, as we're treated to a shot of a trunk-load of machine guns, then the ominous warning, "Some of it might come back to you." (This spot borrows from the government ad called "AK-47," which in turn borrowed its structure from the famous MasterCard "Priceless" ads.) According to Harris Silver, the founder of Citystreets, that spot went out to a range of media outlets, and it was downloaded from the Web site 50,000 times. "Our idea was hijacked," he says, fuming.

And as pointed as the Detroit Project ads seem to be, the Citystreets spot was far more harsh—and more effective. The Citystreets people have a point of view that's both more acerbic and more consistent. The Detroit Project anti-SUV ads let all other drivers off the hook. Is somebody who uses an SUV to cart their family around town really that much worse than a joy rider in a sports car? Is there some minimum miles-per-gallon threshold we can cross and be absolved from all complicity in global terror?

This strategy, suggesting that the problem isn't really such a big one so long as we just stop driving Hummers, actually unites the Detroit Project with the Evangelical Environmental Network. Its own anti-gas-guzzling spot—see it here—featured soaring music and a sermonizing voice-over noting that "too many of the cars, trucks, and SUVs" that Americans drive pollute the air, and "maybe it's time to ask ourselves … what would Jesus drive?" Whether or not that question makes a whit of sense, it does offer the viewer an easy way out: The problem isn't big and systemic, it's just a matter of slightly more careful consumer habits.

The great challenge of anti-marketing is that it aims to make a change that's far more sweeping than just selecting a certain product. This is why a spot like the one from Citystreets is such a stick in the eye—the whole point is to give the viewer a serious jolt. It's no surprise that a religious group would go for a somewhat softer sell. But the Detroit Group campaign seems to split the difference, and in doing so it ends up not shocking so much as pandering. It's not an exhortation to think in a radically different way, but rather an invitation to point a finger and feel better about yourself in the process. And there's certainly nothing shocking about that.

I think that quote in bold mean you guys are NEXT!